>Man, don’t do this here. You’re angry because I provided cites.
No I'm angry because of your attitude. What the hell is a cite?
I'll quote the drivel coming out of your mouth. Most of it is personal and doesn't even refer to the topic at hand:
>Quit while you're behind, my dude.
>This is dangerously wrong and I would suggest that you reconsider the steps that got you to this understanding because something really important has been lost.
>I would also submit that perhaps you should adopt a principle of charity and think real hard about whether your priors are correct before you start talking about what she "fails" to see. Rachel is one of those people who has Been Around and while I also have Been Around, I understand that Rachel has Been Around More and I probably should be listening more than I should be smarming at her.
>You’re angry because you were overconfident, sweepingly general, wrong, and (worse) trivially proven wrong so you’re trying to well-actually out of it by being angry.
>I hasten to note that I am not being judgmental; I have been there. The best thing you can do is take the L and learn from it, dude. Everybody goofs sometimes, but you recall the best advice to take when you find yourself in a hole, yeah?
Nothing I quoted was evidence that I'm wrong, but everything I quoted had a condescending attitude and very personal. This is not how you engage in respectful conversation. It wasn't my plan to "do this here." I don't really give a shit, I'm just saying you mouth off with that garbage of course the person on the other side is going to be a little pissed off. What the hell did you expect? My reaction isn't "weird" like you said earlier, it's normal to someone who is Rude. This was the small point I was trying to make which you expanded on with a very personal remark.
That being said I'm not that angry, just a little, this is the internet after all. I don't care.
Also did you not see my first post? Did you not see me admit to being wrong on something? I have no issue with doing that. This is not a problem for me. Ever. If I'm still arguing with you it means I disagree with you. No actually scratch that, a better way of saying it to you specifically is that it's not that I disagree with you, it's that you're flat out completely wrong and I'm right. See that? Same tact you have.
>And...“typical web programmers”? I don’t know how relevant that is except in the light that typical web programmers use the tools built by folks who understand concurrency we’ll enough to build abstractions that make “you don’t need to think about concurrency“ mostly safe even though they’re completely wrong. Somebody’s gotta be doing that for you.
web programmers need to understand concurrency. In external services like databases you still need to deal with locks, race conditions and deadlocks. These don't disappear, I never said that. The topic is Python and NodeJS and async await and that is the context I am referring to... please stay on topic.
I never said “you don’t need to think about concurrency“ <--- this right here was made up and a total lie.
The rest of that paragraph is incoherent. Somebody is doing <what> for me?
On a side note, you haven't given me any concrete examples of when you need to realistically use your made up locks in nodejs. Your last diamond dependency scenario and code sample made no sense from a practical standpoint.
